Hi folks, this is a homework question.

I am writing an annotated bibliography and later an essay on how 'Greek' the city of Alexandria was during the Hellenistic Era. I have a great many secondary sources, and my central argument is going to be about hybridity and a mosaic of cultural influences.

But. I need a primary source and I am driving myself nuts trying to find one. I asked my lecturer and he recommended I use an artwork or architectural example, which is cool. But my research skills don't seem to be very good. Any artefacts I read about aren't from Alexandria, but from Giza or Memphis or other towns and cities. I am going mad looking for something and I'm running out of time. There's tonnes of funerary art that I can't seem to link to Alexandria.

I'll happily go back to an ancient writer if there is one. Plutarch seems to mention Alexandria is passing when describing events in say Julius Caesar's career. I just don't know enough to know where to look. Is there a famous building maybe? Was there something about the design of the Pharos or the library which architecturally blended cultures? Was there a dig somewhere that placed Greek statuary next to Egyptian maybe? I know about Serapis from Assassins Creed (not a real source, I know but I am getting desperate).

Was there an object like the Ara Pacis maybe? Or a travelogue like Herodotus who wrote about the culture? I know it's inappropriate to ask this sub to do the research for me, and I will be writing this essay on my own. I just need a little more... pointing. Please and Thank you.

I have read that it is common (though not a consensus) today for historians to date Zoroaster to the century or so before Cyrus the Great, in the 7th or even 6th centuries BC (around the time of the Median Empire), which would mean that Zoroastrianism, or his take on Iranian religion, spread very quickly. However, if Zoroaster was, or is defined to be, the author of the earliest Gathas, his language was extremely archaic within Iranian. What are the general arguments about when he lived, especially those arguing he lives as late as the 6th c.? And is ‘he’ potentially a prophet with a specific name, to be distinguished from whatever person/group authored the oldest parts of the Avesta? Or is it assumed that the Avesta was authored much later in language based on some archaic form preserved in the pre-Zoroastrian yasna rituals (with a clear Indo-Iranian origin), or that he happened to be from some lost tribe with a very conservative language?

Might be easier to just focus on England with this question.

People keep saying that surnames were given based on your occupation or other factors. However it's always talked about as some vague point of time in the past, I'm wondering if there was a more specific time and places where this was done?

Like Smith if you were a blacksmith, or Forrest if you worked in a Forest etc. I assume it's some time before the industrial revolution.

Was there a point in history where half the people had surnames, and the other half didn't? How was it that by the beginning of the 20th century everyone conveniently had surnames?

The Vietnam War occupies a pretty unique and deeply contested place in American popular culture and in the US popular memory, for a whole laundry list of reasons. This popular memory, and the general attitude towards the war and Vietnam Veterans, has also shifted significantly over time, particularly (at least anecdotally) in the wake of the Gulf War, but also with the arrival of refugees in 1976, debates over the anti-war/counter-culture movement, Agent Orange litigation, the POW/MIA issue... the war even became a major Presidential campaign issue over 30 years after the US withdrew.

How have the countries in the former USSR dealt with the legacy of Afghanistan, if they have done so at all? I understand this is an incredibly broad question, since it covers 15 different countries, but the interplay between Afghanistan and the collapse of the USSR makes this issue particularly interesting. I am vaguely aware of major issues with substance abuse and a lack of state support for Afghan veterans in Russia at the very least, but this does not answer how the war is remembered (if at all). Did these perceptions change in the wake of the Chechen Wars or other events?

I know these processes of historical contestation are always ongoing, and while I think school curricula and historiography are sort of an exception to the 20-year rule, I do want to throw out an extra reminder to be mindful of that (OTOH I am curious about what impact the Donbass War would've had on all this, but that is still ongoing and I have no problems re-asking this in 15 years or so for that purpose). As a final note: I do not wish to overlook or erase Afghan perspectives or memory of the war, but that seems like a subject that deserves its own question, especially since the Saur Revolution and Soviet invasion were the first round of over four decades of war.

So Greece is about 3000~ years old but only has a population of 10~ million but Iran is around the same age and has a population of 80~ million or Italy's population of 60~ million.

Why is Greece's population, despite being one of the oldest countries in the world and a similar age to the countries previously mentioned so small?

Sorry if this is a common question I couldn't find it in the FAQ but I'm not sure if I was looking in the right place. I get the impression that historians generally consider him reliable but to be careful when he gets really specific is this accurate? Also if I try to read his Histories how "dense" should I expect it to be compared to other books on a scale of The Prince to something by Lacan? I'm reading in English in case the translation would make a difference in difficulty

I've heard that something is officially history when it happened 20 years ago. On that note, in a few months, 9/11 would be considered history.

My question is, what's the process of writing history? Who writes them into history books that students read? How are these people selected and how do these people select what to write?

I've seen a couple of distinct arguments in articles about history on how and when the term "Hindu" as a unified religious group idea began to pop up.

The first is basically that the concept of Hinduism was just an amalgamation of distinct faiths artificially created by the British for administrative purposes

The second is that various indigenous religious groups on the subcontinent saw each other as distinct but begun to start feeling they had a unified identity in the face of the 'other' during the Islamic invasions

And the last is that a concept of unified Hindu identity predates both the British and Islamic conquests of the subcontinent and while different sects of Hindus saw each other as different, they saw themselves as part of the same larger religious tradition

Which of these has the most truth in them? And when Hindu identity did start popping up, was it something that only the religious clergy and elites paid attention to, or would the average peasant identify themselves as Hindu as well? And why did so many diverse sects of Indian religious philosophy end up under the Hindu umbrella but not Buddhists or Jains?

TIL that the reason Prince Philip didn't become King Philip when he married Queen Elizabeth in 1947 has to do with parliamentary law. In British royalty, the spouse of a king or queen is called a consort. A man who marries the queen is called the prince consort and a woman who marries the king is the queen consort

Most of the modern recipes I'm aware of that call for cinnamon tend to mix it with sugar to make baked goods. However, cinnamon was highly valued as a spice even prior to the introduction of sugar. How was cinnamon used prior to the introduction of sugar to the old world? Was it used to add heat to a dish, like pepper or cumin, or did it serve a different purpose in the seasoning of foods?

How did European powers decide to start sending people to live in the Americas? Were there similar policies in place for Africa and Southeast Asia?

So I'm a masters student at the moment and I really would like to focus on the history of tv commercials/advertisements.i have been searching for any scholarly work or historians that specialize in this and I honestly am having a severely hard time. Like I have tried moving words around changing phrases like I cannot for the life of me find anything concrete. Does anyone know of what this specialization would be called/any historians that specialize In this/ any articles or books on it. Even if you know the general field it's in. It would be soo soo soo much appreciated honestly and truly. Thank you.

So, pretty much every single website I go says that the US lost the Vietnam war. But I’m pretty confused, since, as fair as I know the US won the war, dominated the entire Vietnam and made the north Vietnam sign a peace treaty in France, which divided the territory between the north and the south Vietnam’s. And then only when the US completely leaved the Vietnam, the north Vietnam attacked the south Vietnam and won. But then I’d say it’s another war right? If the US made the north Vietnam sign a peach treaty then I guess it means the war has ended.

The losses are a really big fact in this situation as well. The US had ~60k losses compared to 1 million North Vietnam losses (I know there’s civilians included on that, but I’m still thinking that the North Vietnam military losses were far bigger than the US losses).

I’m not sure about all this information though, so I’d like that if there’s something wrong on what I’ve written here please someone correct, and please answer my question in the title of this question.

Thanks in advance!

(I know that the US losses were far bigger than the expected to a war against such a small country, and I know the Vietnamese did a really nice job in troops coordination, leadership and strategies, but what I really want to know is who actually won the war, no matter the cost)

In other words, I'm wondering if the American actions at My Lai were "par for the course" in what they were doing, or one horrific isolated incident.

Also when I say objected here, I specifically mean objected strongly enough that it went through official channels and is clearly on historic record. I'm sure a lot of soldiers object to a lot of things, but this case was a notable one.

From what I've read, part of the justification of the violence at My Lai was the desire to increase the number of dead Vietnamese and record them as Viet Kong to give the impression the war is being won.

In the case of My Lai, this involved mass murder of women, children, and the elderly. Everyone participating seemed to have no problems carrying out these orders, the only reason we're aware of what happened is one helicopter pilot who refused to drop the issue. If it wasn't for him, this would have likely been buried in history.

I'm wondering how frequently My Lai-type incidents would be occurring during the war. I was struck by how non-chalant and routine the mass-murder of unarmed civilians was.

It also seems like higher command genuinely didn't want civilians to be killed -- a lot of them would have been shaped by WWII and seemingly aware of the horrors of mass murder and ethnic cleansing.

Any insight into this would be helpful, thanks for reading.

The game begins in 1444 AD. I realize that heirs of Christian nations were favored and disfavored by their parents, but my question is: Would it be fair to say that the Ottoman Empire in the 15th C. has more control over which heir would take the throne? Rather than going by the oldest heir?

TLDR; Basically, was it empirically easier for the ruler of the Ottoman Empire to pick their favorite heir to succeed than it was for the rulers of France, England, etc?